Jewish Covenant: Valid?

[sandusky]

So God “corrected” Himself later? He said in His heart one thing, but said to Noah another?

The latter statement is THE COVENANT; yes, or no?

 

[japhy]

The latter statement is THE COVENANT; yes, or no?

I suppose so; but what God said in His heart is still His decision on the matter.

 

[sandusky]

I suppose so; but what God said in His heart is still His decision on the matter.

I see. Then all of the covenants that God has made with man, including the new, may be covenants stated subsequent to decisions He’s said in His heart, but He has not revealed; therefore, all of His covenants are suspect; yes, or no?

 

[Genesis315]

The covenant is still valid, but now it has been fulfilled in Christ. Faithfulness to God does not bring a patch of dirt in Palestine, but the true promised land, the Heavenly kingdom. And just as the Jews had to be faithful to God before, they still do–but Gentiles are also now included and offered participation. However, if either Jews or Gentiles are not faithful, they are cut off (just as in the OT).

Faithfulness now necessarily entails faithfulness to the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Therefore, a Jew or Gentile who obstinately rejects Jesus Christ is cut off and will not receive the benefits of the covenant (God does His part, but they didn’t do theirs).

Likewise, Jews are still subject to the Mosaic law, with all its condemnations until they are Baptized, dying to the law and rising to grace.

I suggest a reading of Romans, chapters 11, 12, and 13.

(implicit desire for Baptism and implicit faith in the Messiah in cases of inculpable ignorance are of course possible for Jews as well, given the proper conditions are met).

 

[japhy]

I see. Then all of the covenants that God has made with man, including the new, may be covenants stated subsequent to decisions He’s said in His heart, but He has not revealed; therefore, all of His covenants are suspect; yes, or no?

The covenants of God are not suspect at all.

If God destroys the earth by fire tomorrow, is that going against what He said He would not do in Genesis 8:21-22? Yes or no.

 

[Calvinator]

The covenant is still valid, but now it has been fulfilled in Christ. Faithfulness to God does not bring a patch of dirt in Palestine, but the true promised land, the Heavenly kingdom. And just as the Jews had to be faithful to God before, they still do–but Gentiles are also now included and offered participation. However, if either Jews or Gentiles are not faithful, they are cut off (just as in the OT).

Faithfulness now necessarily entails faithfulness to the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Therefore, a Jew or Gentile who obstinately rejects the Jesus Christ is cut off and will not receive the benefits of the covenant (God does His part, but they didn’t do their’s).

Likewise, Jews are still subject to the Mosaic law, with all its condemnations until the are Baptized, dying to the law and rising to grace.

I suggest a reading of Romans, chapters 11, 12, and 13.

The covenant is still valid? Which covenant? I have shown from your church’s own documents as well as scripture that the Mosaic covenant is no longer valid.

Please explain how you get the Jews are still bound by the Mosaic covenant from Romans 11, 12, and 13. Also, can you provide any papal decree or document from a council (prior to the 20th century) that support your position?

 

[Genesis315]

The covenant is still valid? Which covenant? I have shown from your church’s own documents as well as scripture that the Mosaic covenant is no longer valid.

Please explain how you get the Jews are still bound by the Mosaic covenant from Romans 11, 12, and 13. Also, can you provide any papal decree or document from a council (prior to the 20th century) that support your position?

What documents are you talking about? The Council of Florence when speaking of “Jews” did not mean people of the Jewish race, but those who obstinately adhered to the post-Resurrection religion following the law of Moses but rejecting Jesus Christ.

With Pius XII, you confuse the Old Law with the broader Old Covenant. The Covenant of God is never a curse, only breaking that covenant results in curses. The covenant with Abraham is one of faith, that is the Covenant that is considered still valid. The Mosaic law was a punishment for the unfaithfulness of God’s people–for not being faithful to their end of the covenant. Just like the Babylonian captivity and other chastisements and dispersments they suffered for their unfaithfulness.

Remember, even for pre-advent Jews, the law never brought life, but only punishment, but the Covenant of faith always brought life for the just Jews preceding the Advent of Christ.

Concerning being subject to the law–that would be Romans 7, sorry about that–St. Paul discusses that one must die to the law in Christ to be freed from it. Christ Himself said he did not come to do away with one tittle of the law. That being said, I am not aware of any later Church teaching on the subject because she is concerned with those who have been redeemed and born again, not those who would be still potentially subject to the Mosaic law. It is abolished in the sense that faith since the Resurrection no longer necessitates a desire to adhere to it and it is completely abolished for those who have entered into the fulfilled or new covenant in Christ.

It would probably be a point of theological liberty to argue whether the law is still enforce for those who have not died through Baptism and been reborn. It’s really a moot point–either way at this point it is unto death–from both breaking the law and from lack of faith in the Logos of God.

 

[Calvinator]

What documents are you talking about? The Council of Florence when speaking of “Jews” did not mean people of the Jewish race, but those who obstinately adhered to the post-Resurrection religion following the law of Moses but rejecting Jesus Christ.

Don’t Jews who reject Christ fit in to the category of “those who obstinately adhered to the post-Resurrection religion following the law of Moses but rejecting Jesus Christ.”?

With Pius XII, you confuse the Old Law with the broader Old Covenant. The Covenant of God is never a curse, only breaking that covenant results in curses. The covenant with Abraham is one of faith, that is the Covenant that is considered still valid. The Mosaic law was a punishment for the unfaithfulness of God’s people–for not being faithful to their end of the covenant. Just like the Babylonian captivity and other chastisements and dispersments they suffered for their unfaithfulness.

There is an Abrahamic covenant and a Mosaic covenant. The two are not, are not no how no way the same. If you want to say that the Abrahamic covenant is ongoing I don’t think I would have any problem with that but certainly, the Mosaic covenant has been done away with.

Pius says “And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished;…”, by old law it seems pretty clear that he means the Mosaic covenant. This interpretation seems to fit with scripture as well.

Remember, even for pre-advent Jews, the law never brought life, but only punishment, but the Covenant of faith always brought life for the just Jews preceding the Advent of Christ.

I don’t recall any scripure saying the law brought life. Can you quote something for me?

Concerning being subject to the law–that would be Romans 7, sorry about that–St. Paul discusses that one must die to the law in Christ to be freed from it. Christ Himself said he did not come to do away with one tittle of the law.

What do you think Jesus meant by that?

We have Paul clearly teaching that we are no longer under the law and the law only brings death. How do you square this with what Jesus said?

That being said, I am not aware of any Church teaching on the subject because she is concerned with those who have been redeemed and born again, not those who would be potentially subject to the Mosaic law.

That makes sense with your view point but I don’t think that has been the historical view point of your church.

 

[Teflon93]

When you’ve been shown to be wrong, it’s better to admit your error, than to offer the kind of emotional non-rebuttal that you’ve offered.

Where precisely have I been shown to be wrong?

Here’s your statement:Tell me, please, where that statement, or anything remotely like that statement, is made in the Noahic covenant.

Well, let me post it for you:

Genesis 8:

20Then Noah built (K)an altar to the LORD, and took of every (L)clean animal and of every clean bird and offered (M)burnt offerings on the altar.

21The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, **“I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done. **
22"While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
And cold and heat,
And (R)summer and winter,
And (S)day and night
Shall not cease.”

So I’m wrong about this how?

Here again, you’re emotional, and you falsely assume.

Well, given that my Kiersey Temperament Sorter says I’m an ENTP, I think your emotionalism calibrater is a bit out of whack.
But your inability to argue requires a claim that what you cannot refute is emotional, and I won’t begrudge you that crutch.

Please show me in my posts, where I asserted that Christ’s intent was, to overturn the law.

Isn’t that the whole point of this discussion? I’m simply noting that Christ said he was doing no such thing, which----ta da!—is probably why the Church says the Old Covenant has not been revoked. Christ and God are one, you know.

John 3:18

“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.That answers your first question (cf Jn 4:12). And the book of Hebrews specifically chapters 7 and 10, answers the second.

Okay, that actually looks like an argument.

Here’s the trouble:

Jews believe in God, but not Christ. Righteous Jews obey God, and, as Christ showed in his various discussions of salvation, that ain’t chicken feed. So if God and Christ are one (they are), and if God keeps His promises (He does), then might not righteous Jews be saved as well?

Here’s the historical trouble for you—what happened to a righteous Jew in Antioch who died the day after the Resurrection?

Here’s the Scriptural trouble for you—how was it possible for Moses and Elijah to be present at the Transfiguration?

Something to consider.

What?

The only “path to salvation” is through Christ.

So you’ll need to define your terms “path to salvation” and “through Christ” to bring them to bear here.

The Mosaic covenant, in the form of laws, and sacrifices, cannot save—it never could, and was never intended for that purpose.

Salvation has always been by grace alone, through faith alone, in God alone.

Umm, no it hasn’t. The three alones are Reformation constructs, as we’ve discussed any number of times.

Moreover, “through Christ” was formulated as “through the Body of Christ”—i.e., the Church, for much of history. So given that you’re not Catholic, you might want to avoid an uncharitable view of what “through Christ” precisely means.

You don’t mean to imply that God cannot save anyone He chooses to, do you?

 

[Teflon93]

I see. Then all of the covenants that God has made with man, including the new, may be covenants stated subsequent to decisions He’s said in His heart, but He has not revealed; therefore, all of His covenants are suspect; yes, or no?

If God didn’t reveal His thinking on the matter in Genesis 8, how would Moses know it to include it in Scripture?

We must consider ALL of Scripture, not just cherrypick.

So God’s introduction to the Noahdic Covenant is rather important, you know, if inconvenient for the Fundamentalist for whatever reason.

 

[Teflon93]

Don’t Jews who reject Christ fit in to the category of “those who obstinately adhered to the post-Resurrection religion following the law of Moses but rejecting Jesus Christ.”?

Not necessarily. What happens to the righteous Jew who died the day after the Resurrection? This is where invincible ignorance comes into play. And per Christ’s words, the veil over the Jews’ eyes is indeed invincible ignorance.

There is an Abrahamic covenant and a Mosaic covenant. The two are not, are not no how no way the same. If you want to say that the Abrahamic covenant is ongoing I don’t think I would have any problem with that but certainly, the Mosaic covenant has been done away with.

We’re talking past each other here. The Catholic Church lumps them together in the CCC as “The Old Covenant”. In this post, it simply says “The Jewish Covenant”, which I take to be synonymous with “The Old Covenant”.

Obviously, key pieces of the Old Covenant, such as the dietary laws, are no longer necessary for salvation. This does not mean those who keep them are damned, though. That’s Protestant “either/or” thinking at it’s finest.

Moreover, key pieces of the Old Covenant remain, such as the Decalogue. So you can’t say it was revoked. Moreover, Christ never claimed he was revoking it.

Pius says “And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished;…”, by old law it seems pretty clear that he means the Mosaic covenant. This interpretation seems to fit with scripture as well.

We’d need a source. Since the Catechism contains no heresy, the passages quoted from it seem to indicate that your interpretation is in error.

I don’t recall any scripure saying the law brought life. Can you quote something for me?

Yup. Try Matthew 19:

16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. **If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.” **
18"Which ones?" the man inquired.

Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,'and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[e]"

What do you think Jesus meant by that?

I think Christ was making all people his chosen people, whereas previously the Jews were the sole chosen people of God.

We have Paul clearly teaching that we are no longer under the law and the law only brings death. How do you square this with what Jesus said?

Paul was ministering to the Gentiles and responding to Jewish converts trying to add additional requirements upon their Gentile brothers. In that sense, in their lack of charity and their unwillingness to do as Christ bid them do by making disciples of all nations, the law WAS killing them–it was causing them to sin against their brothers.

Here’s something interesting to ponder too:

Matthew 5:

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

And for variety, Luke 12:

8"And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man will confess him also before the angels of God;

9but he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God.

10"And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.

So what happens to righteous Jews, who do not confess faith and Christ but do not blaspheme against God either and keep His commandments?

 

[Teflon93]

Teflon,

You evidently aren’t reading my posts or don’t have a firm grasp on what the Mosaic covenant is.

a.) The decalogue is a part of the Mosaic covenant but not the entire covenant. Yes the precepts from the decalouge carry over into the new covenant and I said this very same thing a few posts back. I think you don’t have a clear understanding of covenant theology.

That’s always possible, but it would be easier if you would clearly spell out your case. As I see it, when the CCC says the Old Covenant has not been revoked, the Decalogue still being in force is an argument that the Church is correct.

b.) The Mosaic covenant is conditional. If the Jews break their end of the bargain, God is not bound to continue the blessings of the Mosaic covenant and is not breaking his word if He abides by the stipulations of the covenant.

What court could we haul God before if He didn’t maintain His end of the bargain? Job knew. It’s an interesting argument for a Calvinist to make—how does this square with predestination?

c.) You couldn’t have missed the scriptures I presented concerning the curse as well as documents from your own church. Paul was pretty clear that the law brings death and that the old covenant was imperfect.

Careful there—nothing God does is imperfect. Man refused to consistently live up to the old covenant.

d.) I have presented scripture and documents from you own church showing how the old covenant is no longer valid. Did you respond to them? If you did I must have missed your reponse, I guess I’ll go back and re-check to see if you have ever acknowledged that various popes and at least one catechism not to mention all of the NT declare the old covenant to have been done away with.

You’re still conflating terms, and your interpretation is off. Again, I’ve posted the CCC on this topic. THAT’s what the Church teaches.

e.) You say "As noted, old covenant is used in CCC as a broad indication of the bond between God and the Jews."

Whoever wrote the ccc certainly worded himself ambiguously.

Unlike your namesake, the Catholic Church doesn’t assert certitude where there is none. We have a similar issue on the fate of unbaptized babies. Your faith may claim all Jews are damned; per the CCC we claim to know no such thing.

f.) It’s not being un-charitable to the Jews to acknowledge the truth that the Mosaic covenant is not longer valid. In fact, it would be greatly un-charitable to the Jews or anyone else to steer them down the wrong road by telling them to continue their observance of an obsolete covenant.

Good luck with that!

If you believe the Mosaic covenant is still valid, can you provide one iota of evidence from a pope, council, or saint prior to the 20the 20th century that supports your view?

I’ve quoted Christ himself—isn’t that enough?

I’ve already posted quotes from your church documents (popes, councils, and a catechism) that clearly illustrate the Mosaic covenant is gone.

So whatever Christ said is irrelevant? He was just playing fast and loose when he claimed not to be abolishing the Law?

Seriously, why is everything “either/or” with Protestants?

 

[Teflon93]

I’m a Catholic, and my problem with the “Old Covenant”-talk is… the Jews are clearly not upholding their end of the covenant so long as they deny the Messiah God sent them. Why, if they are unfaithful to the covenant, should they be saved under it?

Well, let’s be careful not to throw away invincible ignorance here. I have a good friend who’s an Orthodox Jew, highly observant, and who honestly believes Jesus was NOT the Messiah. This isn’t a belief out of pride or sin, she has rational arguments for this belief (let me point out I don’t find them to be compelling, but she is a law professor and knows how to construct a sound argument).

She lives the life of a truly righteous Jew—keeps the Commandments, the holidays, the dietary laws, the whole nine yards.

I’ve argued the case for Christ with her any number of times. She simply doesn’t buy it. Period.

She is tangible evidence of the veil-over-the-eyes Christ spoke of. I have no doubt that it will take divine intervention to bring her over at the end of days. Until then, and being both righteous, godly, and invincibly ignorant of Christ, what is her condition?

Note also that invincible ignorance applies to our non-Catholic brothers and sisters too, for some of whom, as we’ve seen, Christ himself could return and announce Benedict XVI as Pope and they’d still refuse to go to RCIA.

 

[Calvinator]

So whatever Christ said is irrelevant? He was just playing fast and loose when he claimed not to be abolishing the Law?

You are trying to be clever by saying “So whatever Christ said is irrelevant?”

So Jesus came, suffered and was sacrificed so that the Jews could remain under the law? That just doesn’t make sense to me in light of any scripture I have ever seen or anything I have read from your own church.

What exactly is your interpretation on the words of Jesus and the keeping of the Mosaic covenant? Should we all keep the Mosaic law? If not, why? Since clearly the ceremonial apsects of the Mosaic covenant are part of the law, why or why shouldn’t we keep them too? How about eating shell fish, are we banned from eathing shell fish because of the dietary laws? I am curious to know exactly how you interpret the words of Christ and how they apply to us.

 

[Calvinator]

That’s always possible, but it would be easier if you would clearly spell out your case. As I see it, when the CCC says the Old Covenant has not been revoked, the Decalogue still being in force is an argument that the Church is correct.

I don’t think I can spell my case out any clearer than by saying the the Mosaic covenant is clearly not in effect any more for anyone.

Your church has not taught this in the past and by saying that the old covenant (which is usually defined as the Mosaic covenant) has not been revoked we are left with assuming your church is either using very ambiguous phrasing (maybe they meant something else by “old covenant”) or is teaching a heretical doctrine.

That is as clear as I can make it.

 

[Calvinator]

What court could we haul God before if He didn’t maintain His end of the bargain? Job knew. It’s an interesting argument for a Calvinist to make—how does this square with predestination?

This has nothing to do with predestination or Calvin so please don’t derail the conversation.

If you and I enter into an agreement, let’s call it a covenant and you fail to live up to your end of the agreement, I am no longer obliged to fulfil my end.

Again, maybe for the 12th time, some covenants are conditional and of course some aren’t.

I’m not sure why you are stuck on this issue as this point seems to me to be the easiest one to grasp.

 

[Calvinator]

Note also that invincible ignorance applies to our non-Catholic brothers and sisters too, for some of whom, as we’ve seen, Christ himself could return and announce Benedict XVI as Pope and they’d still refuse to go to RCIA.

I should be offended but that’s pretty funny.

 

[Teflon93]

You are trying to be clever by saying “So whatever Christ said is irrelevant?”

So Jesus came, suffered and was sacrificed so that the Jews could remain under the law? That just doesn’t make sense to me in light of any scripture I have ever seen or anything I have read from your own church.

What exactly is your interpretation on the words of Jesus and the keeping of the Mosaic covenant? Should we all keep the Mosaic law? If not, why? Since clearly the ceremonial apsects of the Mosaic covenant are part of the law, why or why shouldn’t we keep them too? How about eating shell fish, are we banned from eathing shell fish because of the dietary laws? I am curious to know exactly how you interpret the words of Christ and how they apply to us.

Well, you’re trying to be clever by making me a Corinthian.

Why is the Catechism useless to you? It contains the teachings of the Church, and is the window to our faith.

You haven’t answered a single question about what happens to the righteous Jews, nor of invincible ignorance, etc?

So no, Christians don’t follow certain laws under the Old Covenant—dietary restrictions, circumcision, etc—these have been replaced by the 7 sacraments, 5 or 6 of which you’ve tossed away depending.

You seem to be forgetting that Christ was a Jew. In these discussions, Protestants such as yourself really show very little charity toward Jews, in that you seem to presume nothing whatsoever they do is pleasing to God.

So, in answer to the OP, again, the answer is “Yes—key portions of the Jewish covenant remain in force; to whit—the Ten Commandments, the state of Israel, God’s promise to Noah, etc.”

To the related question, “Are all Jews who fulfill the Old Covenant damned”, your answer is…

 

[Teflon93]

I don’t think I can spell my case out any clearer than by saying the the Mosaic covenant is clearly not in effect any more for anyone.

Your church has not taught this in the past and by saying that the old covenant (which is usually defined as the Mosaic covenant) has not been revoked we are left with assuming your church is either using very ambiguous phrasing (maybe they meant something else by “old covenant”) or is teaching a heretical doctrine.

That is as clear as I can make it.

The current Catechism just celebrated its 15th birthday, so it’s taught what it’s taught for at least 15 years in the past.

You still haven’t answered whether the Ten Commandments, the centerpiece of the Old Covenant, are still in force. Yes or no?

The Church cannot teach heretical doctrine. God keeps His promises, and He promised to abide with the Church He founded.

Feel free to join us and enjoy the heresy-free lifestyle.

 

[Calvinator]

Careful there—nothing God does is imperfect. Man refused to consistently live up to the old covenant.

I’ve already quote from the scripture as well as your own church documents which admit that the Mosaic covenant is imperftect.

Could God have designed it that way? No one is saying that God is imperfect.

You’re still conflating terms, and your interpretation is off. Again, I’ve posted the CCC on this topic. THAT’s what the Church teaches.

But your church uses the phrase “old covenant” and strictly speaking, that means the Mosaic covenant.

Either your church has introduced ambiguity into this or they are wrong, as evidenced from both scripture and earlier church documents.